Do you think high schools should be required to have a police officer stationed on campus every day?

Comments

MNrocks2

Just a thought a Police Officer at school could be a positive influence if used correctly. Right now some kids only have a scary or poor outlook of a law enforcment officer depending on family life & past experience. If I had a choice of a school without police presence or with - I know which one I would choose.

ProdigalSon

I totally appose a police presence in our schools. There's no accountability. Too often a disciplinary problem becomes a criminal problem. Police can escalate situations to whatever level their boredom or spitefulness allows. If a teacher abuses a child, we have some recourse. A cop beats, tazers or sexually exploits your child, you basically have to turn a blind eye or face the thin blue line and a lifetime of retaliation.

Google "school resource officer arrested".

The last thing I need is to go to the school to deal with a problem and be told "Nothing to see here, move a long". I don't want to send my kids anywhere where there is someone with a propensity for violence and protected by qualified immunity.

ProdigalSon

We have about 14,000 School Resource Officers nationwide in our schools now. Of all homicides / suicides among children 5-19 years of age, less than 1 percent occur in or around school grounds or on the way to / from school. Most school crime is theft, not violence. SRO's don't prevent gang activity. There was an SRO on duty during the Columbine shooting.

Most are concerned about wackos shooting up the school. Making schools Gun Free Zones [GFZ] was a well meaning, not well thought out move. Now, a shooter knows they are the only one on site with a gun, and have free reign. Remove that notion from the shooter, and rampage killings will drop. In most of these cases, it's over once they meet opposition. We need to establish that the ability to immediately defend exists and is likely by changing the GFZ policies to exempt qualified people.

hartman75

"Now, a shooter knows they are the only one on site with a gun, and have free reign. Remove that notion from the shooter, and rampage killings will drop." - That's a rational response Prod. So what makes you think an individual who decides to go on a killing spree is thinking rationally? Capital punishment has NOT deterred horrific crimes from taking place which was the intent. Areas where large groups of people congregate are targets NOT because there is likely to be no resistance - it's due to the fact they offer the greatest opportunity to those planning mass murder. We FACILITATE mass murder by allowing large capacity gun clips and NOT requiring EVERY gun buyer submit to a background check.

ProdigalSon

The brain short circuit that drives them to go on a rampage may not interfere in their ability to plot and carry out carnage. Much evidence exists that they can and do. And don't kid yourself that they don't CHOOSE low risk / victim rich environments. Ever hear of a rampage shooting at Poor Borch's? Cabelas? No? How about at a Ducks Unlimited Banquet?

As far as the evil guns and their capacities, looks like you'll get to practice lots of acceptance to their existence. Both state and federal legislators have tabled attempts to disarm America.

commonman

I think prod and rangeral should be posted at the gates, since they believe a more heavily armed community is a safer community. They will be volunteers of course, since the right to bear arms is the choice they stand for.......

commonman

Prod must be a lawyer, as he has convinced so many that we should support even more open gun laws in order to prevent more gun crimes. He can hide behind whatever stats he finds to support his argument. The truth is, he will be defending whoever killed innocent people with some lame insanity argument and laughing his way to the bank.

hartman75

"Both state and federal legislators have tabled attempts to disarm America."

How can something be tabled if was never proposed in the first place? Poor Prod, you are so far removed from reality that you can't differentiate clip size restrictions from disarmament. Fear mongering at it's best. All your claims are exaggerations. THIS claim is not however; Nearly three times more kids (15,576) were injured by firearms in 2010 than the number of U.S. soldiers (5,247) wounded in action that year in the war in Afghanistan (source: CDF, CDC, Department of Defense). The belief that your children will be better protected by having a rifle or hand gun in the home is a fallacy.

ProdigalSon

"How can something be tabled if was never proposed in the first place.." ~h75

Gun ban bills were proposed, sponsored, assigned to committees and those committees held public hearings in both state and federal legislative bodies. I'd say that substantiates my contention they were proposed.

Our civil process is kind of murky to you , huh? maybe if you had a better understanding of how things happen, you could take a meaningful part in it, instead of opting for destroying that which you don't understand.

ProdigalSon

'The belief that your children will be better protected by having a rifle or hand gun in the home is a fallacy."~h75

Belief is irrelevant to truth and fact. A truth and fact you need to come to terms with is that we, as Americans, are assured our God given right to self defense in our Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Pay close attention to the "shall not be infringed" part. The best your team has couldn't find away over, around or under that part. Time to give it a rest. You'll find acceptance is the key to your serenity. Accept that which you cannot change. Read another chapter of the Motorcycle Diaries. Inhale deeply. And tell me:

hartman75

I'm sure that is true for you Prod. Personally I've discovered most well informed individuals use truth and fact to form the basis of their beliefs. Your huffing and puffing along with the imaginary conspiracy fables are getting tiresome.

ProdigalSon

"..your huffing and puffing along with the imaginary conspiracy fables are getting tiresome.'~h75

In January 2013, California Senator Feinstein and Representative McCarthy from New York PROPOSED a bill which would "ban the sale, transfer, manufacturing of importation of 157 specific firearms including semiautomatic rifles or pistols that can be used with a detachable or fixed ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and have specific military-style features, including pistol grips, grenade launchers or rocket launchers." Minnesota House Bill 241 would make it a crime for manufacturing, transferring, or possessing certain "assault weapons", which by description, matches about anything that goes "bang".

Pirate

hartman - your use of statistics is mind numbing, as evidenced by the agrees to your posts. Fear mongering and exaggeration? You are the master. You state 16,000 kids were injured by guns in a year. Regrettable but hardly the child shredder you attempt to convey. Six million are injured unintentionally each year. Nearly 1million visit ERs for sports injuries. About 200,000 each for basketball and football. ad infinitum.

Your statistics are also skewed by context. The safety of a child around guns is greatly determined by what they know about them. A child in my house who is taught gun safety is far less likely to be injured or injure others than one who is taught gun fear or even worse educated only by video games and Hollywood.

bystander

Al, there was no need to go after Hartman by calling him a bully in school. Let's keep it civil and keep the name-calling to a minimum. Substantiate your comments with facts and citations. Please don't litter them with insults, innuendos, or playground attacks. That goes for all of you. Many of you seem to resort to playground name-calling and ego-bashing. That's the problem with this country--no one can discuss anything civilly anymore. Makes my head hurt.

bystander

No Al, I was pointing out (AGAIN) YOUR negative comments. It's never-ending. Whenever someone calls you out on your rhetoric, you ask some inane question, wait for a non-response to your inane question, and/or get all uppity when you don't get the reaction you intended. Your comments are full of hyperbole and unsubstantiated opinion. When someone counters your opinion with one of their own, you come back with personal attacks--intelligence, name-calling (i.e., bully comment), and comments about that person's presumed business or scholastic accumen. It's nauseating. Stick to the facts. If you disagree with someone, that's fine, but don't attack their character. That says more about your character than it does theirs.

hartman75

I couldn't agree more with your last post, bystander, which is generally why it seems pointless to engage rangeral in most debates.

Pirate, the statistics speak for themselves. Of course they must be taken in context but that does NOT change the impact guns have on our society. ALL individuals should be taught to respect guns, not fear them. You don't seem to understand the difference. Freedom does not exist in a country when individuals feel it's necessary to carry a gun for protection. If you intend to abide by the law, then the law is not a burden. You and Prod claim we must keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them but then oppose the ONLY means by which that could be accomplished. Why?